Dell Studio XPS 16: the Eyes Have It
by Jarred Walton on April 2, 2009 6:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
General Application Performance
Wrapping things up with our performance testing, we have results from the Futuremark PCMark suites as well as some of our own application benchmarking. When it comes to running your office, multimedia, and Internet tasks, most modern laptops are more than fast enough. What follows are a few of the more strenuous application benchmarks - 3D rendering and video encoding - that put more of an emphasis on high CPU speeds. If you don't do that sort of thing on your computer, you will probably find that just about any current dual-core processor is sufficient.
The Studio XPS 16 continues to offer middle of the pack performance, just as you would expect given the components. For Internet, office use, or image editing, you shouldn't have any difficulties utilizing the XPS 16. If you want to do more CPU intensive work, particularly stuff that can make use of multiple CPU cores, you should consider some of the laptops that are now shipping with quad-core CPUs. The Toshiba X305-Q725 shows what you can expect from laptops with a 2.0GHz Q9000, where 3D rendering and x264 encoding clearly benefit from the additional CPU cores.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link
All 3DMark scores are at the standard 3DMark resolution, so I connect an external LCD where necessary (i.e. laptops with 1280x800 LCDs can't run 1280x1024 in 3DMark06 and Vantage). So the scores are definitely apples-to-apples in that department.I don't know what WoW is really like in terms of GPU needs, but the HD 3670 should be faster than the 8600M GT by a fair margin. If you need more power, though, Gateway's P-7808u FX should do the trick (review in progress), and MSI's GT627 is even more powerful in the GPU department (9800M GT). The only caveat is that neither LCD is anywhere near as good as the Studio XPS 16, and I really dislike the MSI keyboard (it's flimsy).
jiggpig - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
You should add the lenovo x200 or x300 to the battery life charts, I bet they could challenge the macbooks in battery life/battery size charts.JarredWalton - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I would if Lenovo would send me a laptop to test. I've heard good things from some people, and I would love to verify the results. Without doing the testing myself, however, I can't come to any firm conclusion. (What brightness level do they test at? What's the test like? That sort of stuff can make a difference.)erple2 - Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - link
Also, I see that you've posted the minutes/WHr results for the Apple notebooks. However, what are the "at the wall" measurements for power consumption?Is it that OSX is that much stronger optimized for low power usage? I wonder if there would be any difference running Linux vs. Vista vs. OSX on the same laptop (granted, you'd have to run them all on a Macbook I suppose to get that result) at least for power consumption, and wall outlet consumption.
Hrel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Which GPU does it have in it? Sometimes you list the HD4670 and sometimes you say HD4650???Hrel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I meant HD3670 and HD3650... ah typing mistakes that are made significant by barely different product naming schemes.JarredWalton - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Sorry about that... it's an HD 3670, but somehow in the process of writing I started saying 3650. The two chips are the same, other than clock speeds, but I'm not sure on the clocks for the 3650. Anyway, the incorrect part numbers have been corrected. Thanks!Hrel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
"This will allow us to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with other laptops while also showing the performance range you can expect by lowering or increasing the resolution."YAY anandtech! Good job, now if only you would do this on every single review that has anything to with GPU's. Oh, I'm not done with the article yet, but if there aren't 3D Mark scores, there should be.
LoneWolf15 - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link
Yes, because 3DMark scores are SO indicative of real-world performance.[/sarcasm]
cheetah2k - Saturday, April 4, 2009 - link
It would be nice to see 3Dmark06 scores across the whole Dell range in these reviews, including the hefty XPS1730.For those wanting to know, an XPS1730 with 2 x 8800GTX in Sli gets 11,490 marks in 1280x1024 with a T9300 CPU @ 2.5Ghz